The result of the elections to Venezuela’s National Assembly
elections on Sunday was greeted by jubilation in the bourgeois media
internationally. It is too early to make a definitive judgment about
the results, and it has not been confirmed the right wing has overtaken
the PSUV in votes. However, the deafening chorus of triumph in the
international media is premature.
Man showing the blue ink marking someone that has voted. Photo: Héctor Francisco SilvaThe
ferocious international campaign saying that Chavez has lost is a
reflection, not of the real state of affairs, but of the desire of the
bourgeois both in Venezuela and internationally to finish off the
Venezuelan Revolution once and for all. But between desires and their
fulfilment there is always a wide gap, as everyone knows. Whether the
opposition’s counterrevolutionary aspirations are fulfilled or not does
not depend on the results of an election but on the conduct of the
Revolution and its leadership.
Elections are only a snapshot of the state of public opinion at a
given time. These results can tell us a lot about the psychological
state of different classes in Venezuela, and they undoubtedly reveal
certain tendencies in society. They constitute a warning that must be
taken very seriously by all those who have the interests of the
Revolution at heart. But in and of themselves they decide nothing.
The right wing jubilant
The right wing immediately started to crow like a drunken cockerel.
Maria Corina Machado, who was elected deputy of Miranda state said:
“Here it is very clear, Venezuela said no to Cuban-style communism,
Venezuela said yes to the path of democratic construction and now we
have the legitimacy of the vote of the citizenry, we are the
representatives of the people”.
On Monday, MUD officials claimed victory in the elections, based
mainly on their claim to have won the majority of the total votes cast
on Sunday. But this was a bluff. The real situation is more
complicated, although there is no doubt that the Revolution now faces
new dangers.
According to the official results of Sunday’s election released by
the National Electoral Council, Chavez’s United Socialist Party of
Venezuela (PSUV) so far had won 95 seats, while the opposition
coalition Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD) won 62 seats. The
Fatherland for All (PPT) party, a former Chavez ally that split with
the PSUV, won two seats. Three seats went to indigenous people’s
representatives unaligned with either the PSUV or the MUD. The CNE has
not yet announced the results in the contests for three other seats.
course, it is possible to read these results in different ways.
Deputy-Elect Roy Chaderton pointed out on Monday that the opponents of
President Hugo Chavez won approximately 20 fewer seats than they held
during the 2000-2005 legislative term, while the pro-Chavez camp grew
by several seats.
Socialist candidates won in Aragua, Barinas, Bolivar, Carabobo,
Cojedes, Delta Amacuro, Distrito Capital, Falcon, Guarico, Merida,
Monagas, Lara, Portuguesa, Trujillo, Vargas Yaracuy and there was a
draw in Miranda and Sucre. But the right wing won in important states
such as Zulia and Tachira.
Chaderton pointed out that the Opposition has lost ground compared
to the 2000 elections. He said the opposition was setting up a “media
farce” by comparing Sunday’s results only to those of the 2005
elections, which the opposition boycotted, and thus reporting that that
opposition drastically increased its presence in the National Assembly
Elections.
That is correct, and it is also true that the data for the total
number of votes is not a straightforward issue, as people can vote for
a candidate in their constituency as well as voting for a party list
and some MPs are elected through the first system, some through the
second. Nevertheless, it is clear that the vote for the opposition is
growing, while that of the PSUV is declining even more sharply.
To underestimate the strength of the enemy and overestimate one’s
own strength is a very dangerous mistake in politics as in war. The
Revolution needs not sugary illusions but the truth. From the latest
results it seems that the PSUV got 5,399,300 votes, while the right
wing parties won 5,312,283votes.
False optimism
Officially,
the PSUV won the majority of the seats in 16 of Venezuela’s 23 states.
This included sweeping victories in the rural states of Apure, Barinas,
Guarico, Cojedes, Lara, Portuguesa, Vargas, and Yaracuy; and strong
victories in the major industrial states of Bolivar and Carabobo. The
PSUV also won seven seats in the Capital District, compared to three
for the MUD.
In Miranda state, where the capital city is located, the PSUV and
the MUD each won three seats, with the MUD defeating the PSUV by just
741 votes out of a total of 968,947. The two were also tied with three
seats each in Sucre state. In the sparsely populated Amazonas state,
the PSUV won one seat, while the PPT won 2 seats and the MUD none.
However, the MUD swept the border states of Tachira and Zulia, as well
as Anzoátegui and Nueva Esparta.
The PSUV leaders try to present the result as a victory. Vice
President Elías Jaua said: “The revolution can count on a comfortable
majority in the National Assembly… Few governments on our continent
can count on such a comfortable majority of just one party. […] The
opposition does not have any possibility, with this number of deputies,
of reversing the legislative processes that have been completed or
activating destabilizing mechanisms such as revoking public powers or
impeaching the president”.
PSUV Campaign Chief Aristóbulo Istúriz expressed disappointment that
the goal of 110 seats was not reached. However, he said this should not
distract from the “truly decisive victory” won by the PSUV, which
“reaffirms us as the primary political force in our country.”
“We achieved our objective in the sense of being able to guarantee
the defence of President Hugo Chavez and the policies of the
revolutionary government, and having won sufficient forces to propel
structural changes in this era of the construction of socialism,” said
Istúriz.
But the facts do not support this optimistic interpretation. If we
compare the results with the votes in the 2009 regional elections, the
difference is immediately evident. The PSUV then got 6,310,482 votes,
compared to 5,190,839 for the right-wing parties. The warning light is
flashing red and it would be the height of irresponsibility to deny it.
During
the 2000-2005 legislative term pro-Chavez parties held between 83 and
92 seats at any given time, while opposition parties held between 73
and 82 seats, out of a total of 165. But this was a period when the
masses were aroused. The defeat of the counterrevolutionary coup in
2002, and the subsequent defeat of the oil sabotage and the recall
referendum were accomplished by the revolutionary people – that is to
say, the workers and peasants.
Since that time, it is clear that the revolutionary enthusiasm has
ebbed. There is discontent and disillusionment among the masses. The
figures speak for themselves. While the right wing vote went up by a
mere 2.28%, the left vote fell sharply by 14.44%. This means that the
opposition did not win this election; the chavistas lost it.
The importance of leadership
What is the main feature of the present situation? The main thing to
note is that, at least in the electoral terms, the distance between the
forces of the revolution and the counterrevolution has been reduced. There is a sharp increase in the polarisation between the classes.
The first, and possibly the most important, effect is the
psychological effect on the two contending camps. Napoleon pointed out
that in war morale is a vital factor. The counterrevolutionaries will
be encouraged and emboldened to go onto the offensive. By contrast,
many Bolivarian activists will feel discouraged and unhappy. This is a
not unimportant fact!
An army that has suffered a defeat needs to have confidence in its
leaders, the soldiers must feel that the generals know what they are
doing and are able to recover from the defeat and go forward.
In times of retreat in a war the importance of good generals is a
hundred times greater than in an advance. With good generals the army
can stage an organised withdrawal, keeping the army together and in
good order, with a minimum of losses. But bad generals will turn a
defeat into a rout.
The role of the reformist bureaucracy in this situation is
particularly negative. They will draw all the wrong conclusions. They
will be saying: “Look, this proves that we do not have the support of
the people. We must make concessions to the opposition, strike deals,
retreat.” This is the worst possible advice. For every step back the
Revolution takes, the opposition will demand ten more.
The reformists will argue that the elections mean that we have to
adopt a policy of class reconciliation. But that is the very policy
that has undermined the Revolution and alienated is proletarian base.
This was shown graphically by the result in the State of Anzoátegui,
where the big margin of victory achieved by the counterrevolution
reflected discontent with the scandalous behaviour of the governor,
Tarek William Saab and the right-wing chavista bureaucracy who backed
the bosses against the factory occupations in Mitsubishi, Vivex and
Macusa and thus alienated the proletarians who had preciously voted for
the chavistas.
The only way forward for the PSUV is to rely on its real base: the
revolutionary workers and peasants. They are looking to the PSUV to
carry out its promises. The PSUV must break decisively with the
bourgeoisie and its agents, the reformist bureaucracy that represent a
bourgeois Fifth Column within the Revolution.
The threat of counterrevolution
the electoral setback, the Revolution still has important reserves of
support. Over the past year polls have consistently showed that the
PSUV still has the support of around 35 percent of the population,
while support for the opposition parties is much weaker. However, a
large population is undecided, reflecting a growing disenchantment with
the progress of the Revolution. In order to secure its future the
Revolution must find a way to motivate and enthuse these layers. This
can only be done through decisive action.
The approval rating for Chavez’s presidency remains high at around
55% or 60%. This reflects the fact that the Revolution still possesses
huge reserves of support in the population. The problem is that Chavez
is surrounded on all sides with a thick layer of bureaucrats and
careerists who do not see the Revolution as a means of changing society
but only as a vehicle for personal advancement and enrichment.
The PSUV still has a majority of the National Assembly, and will be
able to control the passage of ordinary laws and most other functions
of the legislative body. However, the PSUV failed to win a two-thirds
majority, which means the opposition will have the power to block
organic laws, enabling laws that give decree power to the president,
and some appointments. The right wing, even though it is a minority in
Parliament, has increased its ability to interfere with the Venezuelan
revolutionary process and place obstacles to the action of the
government of President Chavez.
The Opposition will use its position in the Assembly to attempt to
paralyse the government and sabotage progressive laws. But their real
goal is to overthrow the Revolution and seize power. To do this they
will use the National Assembly to mobilise the masses of enraged petty
bourgeois on the streets to create an atmosphere of chaos and disorder.
It is necessary to meet this threat head-on.
Aporrea was correct when, on 27/09/10, it wrote: “The PSUV wins a simple majority in the NA, but the bourgeoisie is gaining ground and the threat is growing”. The article correctly
says that what the election result shows is that “the bulk of the
population prefers the anti-capitalist and socialist path. But, most
strikingly, it revealed an element of vulnerability, since the PSUV and
its allies did not reach the two thirds needed to have a qualified
majority.” And it concludes: “More than ever we need a clean-out and
more Revolution!”
The election results show an advance of the counterrevolutionary
forces, but they are still very far from achieving their real
objective. In order to succeed, the opposition will have to confront
the President and the revolution. The main clash will take place when
the presidential term of office comes to an end in 2012. It is possible
that a showdown can come even earlier if the opposition resorts to a
recall referendum. The only way to prevent this is to speed up the
revolutionary process, carrying out the expropriation of the land, the
banks and the major industries.
“But we do not have a sufficient majority in the National Assembly
to do this!” This argument of the reformists is false from start to
finish. Everyone knows that the fundamental problems of society are not
resolved by parliaments, laws and constitutions but by the class
struggle.
In electoral terms, the petty bourgeois masses may seem a formidable
force. But when they are confronted on the streets by the power of the
workers, peasants and revolutionary youth, their apparent strength will
evaporate like a drop of water on a hot stove. If the Revolution is
worthy of its name, it will refuse to dance the parliamentary minuet
with the counterrevolution but instead will mobilise its forces where
it really matters: not in debating chambers but on the streets, in the
factories and the army barracks.
In a press conference on Monday night, Chavez said the next phase of
his government will include “the acceleration of programs of the new
historical, political, social, and technological project.” That goes in
the right direction but it must be translated into action. The
President concluded: “We must continue strengthening the revolution!”
That, and not the cowardly recipes of reformism, is the only way
forward.
Before us lie only two possibilities: either the greatest of
victories or the most terrible of defeats. In order to secure victory
we must base ourselves on the famous slogan of the great French
revolutionary Danton: “De l’audace! De l’audace! Et encore de
l’audace!” – “Boldness! Boldness and still more boldness!”
